THE 2006 CAMPAIGN; National Battle Over Abortion Focuses on South Dakota Vote

By MONICA DAVEY

Published: November 1, 2006

In the downtown headquarters of those opposing a ban on nearly all abortions in this state, there are notes from around the country taped up and down the hallway: ''They need to butt out of women's lives'' and ''Why did S.D. vote for this?''

On the other side of town, in a warehouse decorated in pink, the supporters of the ban doggedly work a phone bank, in some cases young children playing nearby.

The battle here over a statewide ballot measure to install one of the country's strictest anti-abortion laws is playing out in television commercials, yard signs and Sunday sermons. It is also drawing the attention of national advocates on both sides of the abortion debate, who are watching the campaign with deep intensity and even fear.

Both sides predict that the outcome of the vote in South Dakota could send the country's broader debate over abortion rights swerving in new directions, and will set the tone for the fate of similarly strict laws being considered in nearly a dozen other states.

''I think there's some sense out there that -- 'By golly, if they can do it there, we're going to do it here,' '' said Nancy Keenan, the president of Naral Pro-Choice America, which opposes the South Dakota ban.

Daniel McConchie, the vice president of Americans United for Life, which favors passage of the measure, said a defeat at the polls on Nov. 7 could take the steam out of efforts to impose even less restrictive measures, like parental notification rules or waiting periods, that have been the focus of the anti-abortion movement in recent years.

''There's fear that legislators elsewhere would see what happened there and try to play it safer,'' Mr. McConchie said. ''That would have a chilling effect on more incremental legislation in other places.''

The South Dakota ban was passed by the Legislature in February but was pushed to a statewide vote by opponents. If the law survives, it would become a felony for a doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions except to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. The latest poll shows voters leaning against the ban, but its fate remains uncertain and both sides are now clearly searching to grab the last, undecided voters whose views on abortion may fall somewhere in the blurry middle.

For that, the most extreme arguments are nowhere to be found. No bloody fetuses fill billboards, no absolute claims are being offered about women's rights.

Instead, in calls from a phone bank at the ban opponents' headquarters, volunteers quietly tell potential voters that the law is just too narrow, failing to allow abortions in circumstances like rape or incest. The supporters of the ban, meanwhile, speak in gentle tones about how abortion hurts women.

''I refuse to show pictures of dead babies,'' said Leslee Unruh, who leads Vote Yes For Life, the group that is campaigning for the law, reflecting on methods used by anti-abortion groups. ''That's what the old way was, and that's why they were losing all these years.''

The messages may be muted to appeal to moderates, but the debate has nonetheless grown tense.

Local advocates on each side insist that they are drawing mainly on South Dakotans for help, while also insisting that the other side is getting significant help from wealthy, powerful, well-organized operations outside of the state.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell issued an Internet plea to his followers, calling on them in September to ''counter the propaganda'' Planned Parenthood would be promoting. And Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, scoffed at Mr. Falwell's claims about how much money her group would spend, but acknowledged, ''This is really on the top of everyone's mind.''

Until the week beginning Oct. 29, the political groups have not been required by state rules to publicly disclose the amount or sources of their money since early summer. They were required to submit financial disclosures to the secretary of state's office with postmarks of Oct. 31.

[Neither report had arrived there Tuesday.

[The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which has led efforts to oppose the ban, said late Tuesday that the group raised more than $1.8 million (not including in-kind contributions) since late June, all but $160,000 of that from donors outside the state. Vote Yes For Life, which supports the ban, said it was still deciding whether to release some of its figures late Tuesday evening.]

Oregon and California have abortion measures on their ballots this year, both weighing parental notification laws, similar to provisions for parental notification or consent that exist in various forms in 34 states.

But because of its breadth and scope, South Dakota's measure has eclipsed the other two measures when it comes to national campaign efforts, which have included ambitious fund-raising drives and potluck suppers in 233 towns around the country.

South Dakota's abortion law was intentionally sweeping and was designed, as Gov. Mike Rounds has described it, as a ''full frontal attack'' on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.